“Extreme day trippers” on the rise

[Tetchytyke]

Part of the big difference is the distances.

If we were to say that Newcastle to London circa 300 miles, then anything further than Paris or Amsterdam is beyond that, with extra milagerestoring in extra emissions.

In comparison, Berlin is well over double the distance whist Rome is nearly 4 times the distance. Neither of which are beyond 3 hours of flying.

In terms of a day trip being 'extreme', sitting on LNER for three hours from Newcastle to London isn't really any different from sitting on an EasyJet for 2-3 hours from Newcastle to wherever.

In terms of emissions per passenger km there isn't really all that much between a high speed diesel train and a modern aircraft, it's just that the aircraft travels 4-5 times further in an hour compared to the high speed diesel train. So yes, flying to Berlin emits more than taking the train to London, but taking the train to London emits more than taking the Metro to Cullercoats. And that emits more than just going for a walk around the block.

My point is that unless you stay at home you're contributing emissions for 'pointless' leisure trips. The rest is simply a subjective argument about where one draws the line at 'ethical' emissions. Weirdly, most people (myself included) set that line at roughly what they do; someone who never flies may see flying away for a day in Milan as an unethical luxury, someone who flies commercially may see taking a private jet for a day in Milan as an unethical luxury.

 

[The Ham]

In terms of a day trip being 'extreme', sitting on LNER for three hours from Newcastle to London isn't really any different from sitting on an EasyJet for 2-3 hours from Newcastle to wherever.

In terms of emissions per passenger km there isn't really all that much between a high speed diesel train and a modern aircraft, it's just that the aircraft travels 4-5 times further in an hour compared to the high speed diesel train. So yes, flying to Berlin emits more than taking the train to London, but taking the train to London emits more than taking the Metro to Cullercoats. And that emits more than just going for a walk around the block.

My point is that unless you stay at home you're contributing emissions for 'pointless' leisure trips. The rest is simply a subjective argument about where one draws the line at 'ethical' emissions. Weirdly, most people (myself included) set that line at roughly what they do; someone who never flies may see flying away for a day in Milan as an unethical luxury, someone who flies commercially may see taking a private jet for a day in Milan as an unethical luxury.

A few things you are overlooking.

Most rail travel is via electric trains, especially when doing trips like Newcastle London.

To get the lower carbon emissions per person requires the flights to be over 90% (if not 95%) full, whist rail is generally done on the average of all travel for a typical week (especially the Rail Delivery Group's calculator) on that route and so will potentially give a worse figure compared to the optimal version of a high occupancy fight.

Chances are those doing extreme day trips are either booking as soon as a flight is possible or (more likely) on a flight which might not get to those sorts of load factors.

Even "if" rail was slightly worse (due to using diesel) then going 300 miles at 50g per mile (15kg) is still going to be less emissions than going 1,200 miles at 40g per mile (48kg).

However, London Newcastle by train is 21g per km per passenger (average loading over the course of a week)

If we were comparing emissions per passenger per hour and they were broadly the same then looking at the time taken would be reasonable, however that's not the comparison you're making.

Note, I'm not saying that such flights should be banned, rather that such flights aren't as low carbon as some are suggesting.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is this really any worse in experience then the many people on here (including me) who get up at 5am for a railtour that spends 4 hours at a destination?

Or in the haulage days (at their peak) way worse than that!

 

[1D54]

Or in the haulage days (at their peak) way worse than that!

(at their peak).. Pun intended

 

[TravelDream]

Don't forget having to turn up two hours before departure in both directions to stand in a series of queues.

I don't get why people say this.

No bags to check mean very few queues need to be joined.

Two hours is too early IMO.

Depends on the airport, obviously, but 60 is generally more than enough for the vast majority of them.

 

[mmh]

We are on a railway forum. We're railway enthusiasts. There are plenty of people on here who'll travel to the other end of the country to tick off a rare bit of track or to tick off a brand new or soon to be withdrawn type of train. I have.

So why is a day trip but going on an aircraft any different?

This is completely spot on. Different people enjoy different things, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[The Ham]

This is completely spot on. Different people enjoy different things, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However there are things which are wrong for people to do (even if people enjoy doing those things) and other things which have consequences if people do them.

 

[The Foghorn]

I have a friend who was once asked where he was getting off this Edinburgh bound class 91. "Stevenage" was his reply as they entered Gasworks Tunnel. "It's first stop Peterborough," he was helpfully informed. "Not on the way back mate!". Be told....

King's Cross to Stevenage via Edinburgh. Extreme, keen or downright desperate?

 

[AlterEgo]

However there are things which are wrong for people to do (even if people enjoy doing those things) and other things which have consequences if people do them.

Like going to a heritage railway burning filthy coal all day perhaps. Coal which might have been produced using at best questionable labour practices.

 

[The Ham]

Like going to a heritage railway burning filthy coal all day perhaps. Coal which might have been produced using at best questionable labour practices.

That's a fairly minor example, given that heritage railway emissions for the whole of the UK are less than 0.05% of car emissions (which in turn is a share of transport which is a share of the total)

To put that into perspective, if everyone who drive walked 5 miles a year instead of driving that would offset the difference.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's a fairly minor example, given that heritage railway emissions for the whole of the UK are less than 0.05% of car emissions (which in turn is a share of transport which is a share of the total)

To put that into perspective, if everyone who drive walked 5 miles a year instead of driving that would offset the difference.

That's not the point.

How many people drive to the heritage railway? How many household goods do they have that came to them on an aeroplane? How many flights does every household actually generate even when they stay at home but make choices which mean foreign goods and food come to them from many miles away?

Flight shaming is a distinctly Presbyterian endeavour, which seeks out people who might be visibly enjoying themselves online and having fun. "If it feels good, it's probably bad for you". Little focus is given to anodyne activities which also contribute vast emissions like buying New Zealand lamb or wine from Chile or chutney from South Africa, all of which come thousands of miles on aeroplanes nestled below the passengers - and sometimes on dedicated aircraft. Or for that matter, people selling stuff on eBay and posting it abroad.

You don't have to go to the heritage railway and watch a lot of central or eastern Asian coal which was mined by people with few rights (and shipped thousands of miles to us) get turned into harmful emissions, for fun. The idea that heritage railways are small endeavours and so can't come in for the same criticism isn't the point. Surely your quibble is with the individual's choice to spend their day watching tonnes of coal get turned into carcinogenic particulates which pollute the atmosphere with carbon. What's the carbon footprint of going to the NYMR for the day?

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Co2 in the atmosphere 0.04%

Co2 natural 0.0384%

Co2 human 0.0016%

UK co2 emissions 0.000016% per year

UK co2 emissions per day 0.0000000438%

UK co2 emissions per day for flights 0.0000000031%

UK co2 emissions per flight per day 0.000000000000038%


Please everyone keep enjoying your days out in your cars, planes, trains etc.

 

[AdamWW]

Co2 in the atmosphere 0.04%

Co2 natural 0.0384%

Co2 human 0.0016%

UK co2 emissions 0.000016% per year

UK co2 emissions per day 0.0000000438%

UK co2 emissions per day for flights 0.0000000031%

UK co2 emissions per flight per day 0.000000000000038%


Please everyone keep enjoying your days out in your cars, planes, trains etc.

And after all the likely rises in sea level are only a tiny fraction of the depth of the oceans so they won't bother anyone.

 

[bleeder4]

The aviation industry is aiming to be completely carbon neutral within 20 years anyway. Sustainable aviation fuel already exists, it's just far too expensive at the moment. Once it can be produced more cheaply it will then become more widespread, so aircraft emissions will greatly reduce. Hasn't Richard Branson's airline already flown some carbon neutral trans-Atlantic flights as tests?

 

[AndrewE]

The aviation industry is aiming to be completely carbon neutral within 20 years anyway. Sustainable aviation fuel already exists, it's just far too expensive at the moment. Once it can be produced more cheaply it will then become more widespread, so aircraft emissions will greatly reduce. Hasn't Richard Branson's airline already flown some carbon neutral trans-Atlantic flights as tests?

this is a complete red herring, and aviation will never be sustainable apart from a few very niche electric planes.

Looking at "sustainable fuel" in context:
If we were to convert 0.25% of UK land to PV farms it wouldn't have much effect on agricultural production as
we already have 4x as much land being locked up for golf, and 3x as much land being used for bio-diesel/bio-ethanol, part of the 9x more land used for bio-fuels (not to mention the fossil fuels and fertilisers used to grow it) so I think carbon-neutral aviation is a smoke-screen.

 

[The Ham]

That's not the point.

How many people drive to the heritage railway? How many household goods do they have that came to them on an aeroplane? How many flights does every household actually generate even when they stay at home but make choices which mean foreign goods and food come to them from many miles away?

Flight shaming is a distinctly Presbyterian endeavour, which seeks out people who might be visibly enjoying themselves online and having fun. "If it feels good, it's probably bad for you". Little focus is given to anodyne activities which also contribute vast emissions like buying New Zealand lamb or wine from Chile or chutney from South Africa, all of which come thousands of miles on aeroplanes nestled below the passengers - and sometimes on dedicated aircraft. Or for that matter, people selling stuff on eBay and posting it abroad.

You don't have to go to the heritage railway and watch a lot of central or eastern Asian coal which was mined by people with few rights (and shipped thousands of miles to us) get turned into harmful emissions, for fun. The idea that heritage railways are small endeavours and so can't come in for the same criticism isn't the point. Surely your quibble is with the individual's choice to spend their day watching tonnes of coal get turned into carcinogenic particulates which pollute the atmosphere with carbon. What's the carbon footprint of going to the NYMR for the day?

I suspect that many who fly don't necessarily understand the volume of carbon compared to some of those examples given.

For example, a return flight to Rome would be comparable to around 500 bottles of wine from Chile. As such, if someone was consuming that much wine in a year I'd ask them about the consequences of doing so.

Likewise, even if the carbon emissions from driving (vehicle km's) were the same per passenger km as flying, then a family of 4 going Rome would be the same as that same family driving 9,600 miles in year to visit 20 heritage railways.

Also, the numbers flying is also increasing, whilst things like wine imports have fallen from a peak of 1.5bn litres in 2015 to 1.1bn litres in 2024 (with values for 2025 likely to be a little lower than 2024).

Co2 in the atmosphere 0.04%

Co2 natural 0.0384%

Co2 human 0.0016%

UK co2 emissions 0.000016% per year

UK co2 emissions per day 0.0000000438%

UK co2 emissions per day for flights 0.0000000031%

UK co2 emissions per flight per day 0.000000000000038%


Please everyone keep enjoying your days out in your cars, planes, trains etc.

Most natural systems have a limit before too much of something is bad for that system (for example sugar is a good way of getting energy for our bodies, however, if people have too much they can get type 2 diabetes).

As such, do you know what the limit of carbon in the atmosphere can get to before it's a problem?

The aviation industry is aiming to be completely carbon neutral within 20 years anyway. Sustainable aviation fuel already exists, it's just far too expensive at the moment. Once it can be produced more cheaply it will then become more widespread, so aircraft emissions will greatly reduce. Hasn't Richard Branson's airline already flown some carbon neutral trans-Atlantic flights as tests?

Even if that were possible, then that still doesn't negate the emissions currently happening.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect that many who fly don't necessarily understand the volume of carbon compared to some of those examples given.

For example, a return flight to Rome would be comparable to around 500 bottles of wine from Chile. As such, if someone was consuming that much wine in a year I'd ask them about the consequences of doing so.

Likewise, even if the carbon emissions from driving (vehicle km's) were the same per passenger km as flying, then a family of 4 going Rome would be the same as that same family driving 9,600 miles in year to visit 20 heritage railways.

Also, the numbers flying is also increasing, whilst things like wine imports have fallen from a peak of 1.5bn litres in 2015 to 1.1bn litres in 2024 (with values for 2025 likely to be a little lower than 2024).

Air cargo is actually increasing and represents about a third of the value of freight *nationwide*.

And it's value that matters - I'm sure you aren't suggesting people who weigh 60kg get double the carbon budget of someone weighing 120kg. If I'm paying £50 to go to Rome I'm putting in the same value as someone paying £50 to air freight a case of wine from Chile or South Africa. Except the flight from Chile is 14 hours and produces several times the emissions as a return to Rome - and that's assuming it flies direct. Carbon footprint isn't about how much fuel it costs to haul your carcass in the air, it's about paying a polluting industry to do its business. Business class travel is more "sinful" because the fares are higher, rather than the fairly ridiculous argument that the seats are bigger and you are hence depriving other people of the opportunity to commit carbon sins if the aircraft only had a denser configuration. Likewise, my carbon footprint doesn't change if the plane is half full. The airlines fly because they make money. If I donated £5,000 to British Airways every year and never stepped on the plane, would I not still be responsible for that company's emissions?

Flying stuff in from abroad is expensive and polluting. But I don't see a concerted campaign to have fewer cargo planes. How much money do you spend every year on goods which have been expensively flown in? Do you know how much value you're giving the airlines through your consumer choice? It might well be several hundred quid - the cost of half a dozen "extreme day trips".

I really don't have an issue with decarbonisation - but you can't drive change in the way most people frame it. I maintain it's Presbyterianism "looks fun, probably bad, can call it out as a sin". It's a very culturally European way of trying to address a problem.

 

[The Ham]

Air cargo is actually increasing and represents about a third of the value of freight *nationwide*.

And it's value that matters - I'm sure you aren't suggesting people who weigh 60kg get double the carbon budget of someone weighing 120kg. If I'm paying £50 to go to Rome I'm putting in the same value as someone paying £50 to air freight a case of wine from Chile or South Africa. Except the flight from Chile is 14 hours and produces several times the emissions as a return to Rome - and that's assuming it flies direct. Carbon footprint isn't about how much fuel it costs to haul your carcass in the air, it's about paying a polluting industry to do its business. Business class travel is more "sinful" because the fares are higher, rather than the fairly ridiculous argument that the seats are bigger and you are hence depriving other people of the opportunity to commit carbon sins if the aircraft only had a denser configuration. Likewise, my carbon footprint doesn't change if the plane is half full. The airlines fly because they make money. If I donated £5,000 to British Airways every year and never stepped on the plane, would I not still be responsible for that company's emissions?

Flying stuff in from abroad is expensive and polluting. But I don't see a concerted campaign to have fewer cargo planes. How much money do you spend every year on goods which have been expensively flown in? Do you know how much value you're giving the airlines through your consumer choice? It might well be several hundred quid - the cost of half a dozen "extreme day trips".

I really don't have an issue with decarbonisation - but you can't drive change in the way most people frame it. I maintain it's Presbyterianism "looks fun, probably bad, can call it out as a sin". It's a very culturally European way of trying to address a problem.

Nearly all wine is transported by sea or road with less than 1% going by air and therefore has a fairly low carbon footprint.

It's actually possible for a shipped (in a giant bladder) Chilean wine to have a lower carbon footprint than one bottled on the vineyard in (say) Italy and delivered by lorry to the UK.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However there are things which are wrong for people to do (even if people enjoy doing those things) and other things which have consequences if people do them.

Unless you go for a walk around the block, any leisure day trip generates ‘pointless’ emissions and those ‘pointless’ emissions have consequences.

The hand-wringing about aviation does come across as rather Presbyterian, as @AlterEgo says.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nearly all wine is transported by sea or road with less than 1% going by air and therefore has a fairly low carbon footprint.

It's actually possible for a shipped (in a giant bladder) Chilean wine to have a lower carbon footprint than one bottled on the vineyard in (say) Italy and delivered by lorry to the UK.

It's not just about wine. You're missing the point I'm making, but I won't push it any further.

 

[The Ham]

It's not just about wine. You're missing the point I'm making, but I won't push it any further.

Air freight accounts for 1% of products by volume but about 30% by value, so even without looking these are likely to be high value but light items.

Looking at the data it's things like:
- electronic devices (typically high value laptops, smartphones and the like)
- some medications
- fresh seafood, exotic fruit and vegetables, etc.
- high end fashion
- engineering (aviation, car and other specialist kit) parts
- flowers and plants
- jewellery

Yes there willbe individuals who will be purchasing such stuff in higher than normal volumes, however there are ways for individuals to limit their impact.

For example, buying refurbished tech, gong to plant nurseries (where they grow their own plants), generally buying in season foods or tinned foods rather than fresh, not buying lots of clothing and not necessarily buying branded items.

Of course, limiting the purchase of such products (either by not having them or by reducing the frequency of purchase) is also worth doing.

For example, there's a big carbon footprint difference between buying a new phone every year and buying a refurbished (2 year old) phone and keeping it for at least 3 years.

Things like medications are harder to avoid, as if you need them you need them (we're not taking cold and flu remedies). However, these are more likely for those which require to be temperature controlled or are high value.

However, it's also entirely possible that someone making 4+ flights a year could also be a high consumer of such products too.

The point isn't that all flying is bad, rather that any flying is going to create a higher carbon footprint than any alternative, mostly due to the significant distances even if they were otherwise the same per km basis.

Should we ban all flights, no. Should we consider our actions, yes and often one area which is fairly easy to do that is by considering does one need to take more than 4 flights in a year. Sometimes, someone may consider that worth doing, but to make it a matter of routine and significantly higher than 4 fights every year probably isn't sustainable (even if that individual contributes £0 to air freight).

The complication with air freight is that not that much is on dedicated flights (something like 3% of flights). As such, an increase in passenger fights is likely to result in more air freight as there's then the potential for more capacity to be available for more freight to be carried.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

If you were a school teacher and wanted to improve the average marks in your class then you would target the students who are scoring low in their exams. You’d be foolish to be saying to the ones who are scoring 90/95% that they need to up their game. But that’s precisely what is happening now with the whole ‘carbon crisis’ (carbon and carbon dioxide are totally different substances with entirely differing properties so I assume everyone is referring to CO2). And if this ‘crisis’ turns out not to be a scam (that’s a very big if), unless the people who can really make a difference are also signed up and buying into it then nothing we do here will make even a jot of difference. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. You can cycle on your electric bike with a battery made from questionable labour in Africa, drive your non-recyclable electric cars, avoid flights which bring out-of- season food in, stop eating UK-bred grass-fed beautiful beef and lamb and destroy the countryside with solar farms and non-recyclable windmills until the cows come home. But it will be a complete waste of your time and your money. Unless China, India and other big so-called polluters also do the same then there is zero point. Your carbon dioxide footprint is irrelevant.


Most people these days would rather make it look like they are doing something ‘kind’ (what an overused and misused word) and good than actually do something ‘kind’ and good. Go and pick litter in your local area (why can’t there be a net zero litter drive instead? Or net zero pot holes?), plant trees and shrubs with your local wildlife charity, cultivate your garden so insects and bees enjoy it, put a bird bath out, grow some vegetables or fruit, shop local. Actually make a difference. All this net zero stuff is doing absolutely nothing except making everyone poorer and destroying the beautiful countryside.


To answer a couple of posters earlier. I don’t think the sea levels are rising. The Maldives should have been underwater about 30 years ago if we listened to the ‘experts’. The sea level in New York has risen less than a foot in 180 years and that is a linear rise which was happening long before carbon raised its unfortunate head. The trend is likely centuries old. Have you ever gone and looked at average tides in some of the UK ports over the last 200/300 years? If not go and look at them. Have a look at photographs over the decades of buildings like rock lighthouses and bridge piers. They’re still at exactly the same height above the water as they’ve always been.


As for the critical carbon dioxide amount - I do not know. I am not certain that even if you amassed all the carbon possible in the world and released it anything detrimental would happen. What is for sure though is that the plants and fauna would lap it up – just like they are now. Carbon is the life source for all living things, ourselves included. Our breathing is regulated by carbon dioxide – without it the human race faces absolute certain death.


I do not terrorise myself, family or friends or anyone else for that matter about what their potential ‘carbon dioxide’ footprint is. Someone mentioned earlier about the coal used for heritage railways. That fits into the ‘look like I’m doing something kind’ category perfectly. There is still a small demand for coal in the UK so why on earth were the last couple of opencast coal mines closed? Those mines operated under strict environmental conditions, employed local people in good jobs and provided energy for the few remaining UK industries which need it. But now coal is imported from developing countries from mines who’s labour practices and environmental impact will, in all likelihood, be far worse than what we had in the UK. But so long as it looks like something kind is being done then that is enough it seems.

 

[The Ham]

The thing is China in 2025 was at least flat compsred to 2024 and probably falling sightly

Whilst India is still setting an increase between those years, that growth was less than 1% compared with a few years ago of around 4.5%.

Even then the per person emissions are either broadly the same (China) or significantly lower (India).

As I've said there's a difference between zero fights (not what I'm saying) and unlimited flights.

Doing extreme day trips a few times a year is going to mean that the carbon emissions from that individual are likely to be significant.

Personally, if it turns out that carbon isn't an issue, but we've moved to having much cleaner air in our cities, we don't get economic shocks when oil movements are restricted, and the like then I'll be happy to be wrong as overall the consequences would be limited.

I'm not sure that if the opposite was true (I.e. that carbon is an issue) that the consequences are quite so limited (even if they aren't as extreme as some suggest).

 

[SynthD]

And after all the likely rises in sea level are only a tiny fraction of the depth of the oceans so they won't bother anyone.

I don't understand, can you add some water to your water glass without raising the top of the water? By saying the rise in sea level, you've accounted for the width of the container.

Have you ever gone and looked at average tides in some of the UK ports over the last 200/300 years? If not go and look at them.

[Image shows Newlyn monthly sea level, with one average black line for the past 100 years, and another steeper average line for the last 20 years.]

These long flights are measurably bad and rightly pointed out, but no one is judging them as hard as some have described. I think it's worse to take their child out of school for a holiday, or not show them their own countryside, or go to a country where they likely don't speak the language.

 

[317 forever]

I will take a flight purely to tick the Wetherspoon after departures at an airport. It’s quite an honour to be called extreme for simply doing that.

Wetherspoons at some airports do themselves high in some cases fly high ... in terms of prices.

 

[dk1]

Wetherspoons at some airports do themselves high in some cases fly high ... in terms of prices.

Oh yes of course. It’s to be expected but almost always trounce the competition.

 

[Howardh]

If the eclipse in August were during the day, I'd extreme day-trip for that (would UK/Valencia day ret be extreme??) but the eclipse is early evening (around 8.30pm local time) so a hotel would be necessary. I would definitely do a day-trip to Ibiza from Manchester, which would be little different time-wise than a day trip to London and certainly Brighton.

As for green issues, would me taking those flights be any worse than me driving from Manchester to London and back - solo?

 

[Bald Rick]

If the eclipse in August were during the day, I'd extreme day-trip for that (would UK/Valencia day ret be extreme??) but the eclipse is early evening (around 8.30pm local time) so a hotel would be necessary. I would definitely do a day-trip to Ibiza from Manchester, which would be little different time-wise than a day trip to London and certainly Brighton.

As for green issues, would me taking those flights be any worse than me driving from Manchester to London and back - solo?

You can do a daytrip to Mallorca for that easily.

 

[Howardh]

You can do a daytrip to Mallorca for that easily.

The eclipse? Same issue, low in the sky before sunset. Day trip? Yes, although I believe there are long passport queues on return meaning you have to be at the airport very early before the flight...means less of the day spent on the beach or whatever!

 

[The Ham]

As for green issues, would me taking those flights be any worse than me driving from Manchester to London and back - solo?

According to AI you'd have to (link should be to the full thread):

Google Search

You would need a vehicle like a Lamborghini Aventador or a Bugatti Chiron (~500–600g/km) or a vintage heavy-duty truck to approach these levels of solo emission over such a short distance compared to the flight.

The simple reason being that London Manchester is around 1/5th the distance of Ibiza Manchester (210 miles vs 1,015 miles).

That's based on the fight being full and the per person emissions being 98g/kg.

I therefore asked if it were to use the most effective aircraft (such is said was 58g per kg) it got a bit more of a viable option:

This is roughly the emission level of a high-performance sports car (e.g., a Porsche 911) or a large, older Land Rover Discovery.

I asked about congestion, as clearly that's a possible factor, using a car which does 20mpg and it said:

If you are driving a car that gets 20 mpg, you would only need to be stuck in congestion for about 2.5 hours to match the carbon emissions of that ultra-efficient flight to Ibiza.

I did ask for congestion at 30mph first but that was over 12 hours, so felt that was a bit ridiculous so didn't feel that was likely, so adjusted the mpg downwards.

As such (and given I don't know what vehicle you drive) it's possible, although for most people it's unlikely.